The King Follett Discourse

Aaron32

Active member
However, when you bring up what Joseph Smith taught about that, in the April 1844 General Conference, they deny what he said about God the Father not always being God. That He was a human who worked His way up to Godhood, the way they can do. Mormons believe they can do that, but they have trouble with Smith teaching that’s what their God did.

I think many think Mormons just check their brains at the door, as if we just omit all logic and reason.
The King Follett discourse has not been canonized, but beyond that, let’s set why a Mormon would reject it.

Let’s look at Joseph’s own standard to prove his case:

So first: Joseph appeals to our own witness of the Holy Ghost -

“My first object is to find out the character of the only wise and true God, and what kind of a being He is; and if I am so fortunate as to be the man to comprehend God, and explain or convey the principles to your hearts, so that the Spirit seals them upon you, then let every man and woman henceforth sit in silence, put their hands on their mouths, and never lift their hands or voices, or say anything against the man of God or the servants of God again. But if I fail to do it, it becomes my duty to renounce all further pretensions to revelations and inspirations, or to be a prophet; and I should be like the rest of the world—a false teacher, be hailed as a friend, and no man would seek my life.”

Then he tells us how he supports his claim:
...for I am going to prove it to you by the Bible, and to tell you the designs of God in relation to the human race, and why He interferes with the affairs of man.

Here is the claim:
“I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see.”

As we can see, from the get go, this is unscriptural. (Moroni 8:18)

Later, he continues:
“What did Jesus say? (Mark it, Elder Rigdon!) The scriptures inform us that Jesus said, as the Father hath power in himself, even so hath the Son power—“

(Quoting John 5:26)

“to do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious—in a manner to lay down his body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again.”

I personally do not see any scripture Joseph Smith could be getting this.

So there you have it. Joseph contradicted himself, I (personally) don’t feel the Spirit on it. And true to his word, that was basically his last address. He died two months later.

Thus, there is no standard by which any Mormon should be painted of believing the King Follett discourse just on the virtue of being a Mormon.
 

The Prophet

Member
I think many think Mormons just check their brains at the door, as if we just omit all logic and reason.
The King Follett discourse has not been canonized, but beyond that, let’s set why a Mormon would reject it.

Let’s look at Joseph’s own standard to prove his case:

So first: Joseph appeals to our own witness of the Holy Ghost -

“My first object is to find out the character of the only wise and true God, and what kind of a being He is; and if I am so fortunate as to be the man to comprehend God, and explain or convey the principles to your hearts, so that the Spirit seals them upon you, then let every man and woman henceforth sit in silence, put their hands on their mouths, and never lift their hands or voices, or say anything against the man of God or the servants of God again. But if I fail to do it, it becomes my duty to renounce all further pretensions to revelations and inspirations, or to be a prophet; and I should be like the rest of the world—a false teacher, be hailed as a friend, and no man would seek my life.”

Then he tells us how he supports his claim:
...for I am going to prove it to you by the Bible, and to tell you the designs of God in relation to the human race, and why He interferes with the affairs of man.

Here is the claim:
“I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see.”

As we can see, from the get go, this is unscriptural. (Moroni 8:18)
Moroni 7:22 For behold, God knowing all things, being from everlasting to everlasting , behold, he sent angels to minister unto the children of men, to make manifest concerning the coming of Christ; and in Christ there should come every good thing.

2 Nephi 27:23
For behold, I am god; and I am a God of miracles; and I will show unto the world that I am the same yesterday, today, and forever; and I work not among the children of men save it be according to their faith.

2 Nephi 29:9
And I do this that I may prove unto many that I am the same yesterday, today, and forever; and that I speak forth my words according to mine own pleasure. And because that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever.
from all eternity to all eternity.

Mormon 9:9 For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever , and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing?

Mormon 9:19
And if there were miracles wrought then, why has God ceased to be a God of miracles and yet be an unchanging Being? And behold, I say unto you he changeth not; if so he would cease to be God; and he ceaseth not to be God, and is a God of miracles.”

Moroni 8:18 For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable

2 Nephi 19:9 And I do this that I may prove unto many that I am the same yesterday, today, and forever; and that I speak forth my words according to mine own pleasure. And because that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever.

Moroni 7:22
For behold, God knowing all things, being from everlasting to everlasting, behold, he sent angels to minister unto the children of men, to make manifest concerning the coming of Christ; and in Christ there should come every good thing.

By these things we know that there is a God in heaven, who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God, the framer of heaven and earth, and all things which are in them; D&C 20:17


Later, he continues:
“What did Jesus say? (Mark it, Elder Rigdon!) The scriptures inform us that Jesus said, as the Father hath power in himself, even so hath the Son power—“

(Quoting John 5:26)

“to do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious—in a manner to lay down his body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again.”

I personally do not see any scripture Joseph Smith could be getting this.

So there you have it. Joseph contradicted himself, I (personally) don’t feel the Spirit on it. And true to his word, that was basically his last address. He died two months later.

Thus, there is no standard by which any Mormon should be painted of believing the King Follett discourse just on the virtue of being a Mormon.
 

zerinus

Active member
I think many think Mormons just check their brains at the door, as if we just omit all logic and reason.
The King Follett discourse has not been canonized, but beyond that, let’s set why a Mormon would reject it.
While it is true to say that the King Follett Sermon, or more accurately, Joseph Smith's doctrine of the origin of God as taught in the King Follett Sermon, has not been canonized; there is no doubt that Joseph Smith taught it, and I personally have no difficulty accepting that it is true.
Let’s look at Joseph’s own standard to prove his case:

So first: Joseph appeals to our own witness of the Holy Ghost -

“My first object is to find out the character of the only wise and true God, and what kind of a being He is; and if I am so fortunate as to be the man to comprehend God, and explain or convey the principles to your hearts, so that the Spirit seals them upon you, then let every man and woman henceforth sit in silence, put their hands on their mouths, and never lift their hands or voices, or say anything against the man of God or the servants of God again. But if I fail to do it, it becomes my duty to renounce all further pretensions to revelations and inspirations, or to be a prophet; and I should be like the rest of the world—a false teacher, be hailed as a friend, and no man would seek my life.”

Then he tells us how he supports his claim:
...for I am going to prove it to you by the Bible, and to tell you the designs of God in relation to the human race, and why He interferes with the affairs of man.

Here is the claim:
“I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see.”

As we can see, from the get go, this is unscriptural. (Moroni 8:18)
I don't agree that there is necessarily a contradiction. According to LDS scripture, the divine attributes of infinity, eternity, and unchangeableness etc. are attributes that can be acquired. They don't mean what we, in our finite minds, think they mean:

Doctrine and Covenants 132:

20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.


Deification in LDS theology means acquiring all the divine attributes of infinity, eternity, unchangeableness, omniscience, omnipotence, etc. That is what it means to be deified, or become gods.
Later, he continues:
“What did Jesus say? (Mark it, Elder Rigdon!) The scriptures inform us that Jesus said, as the Father hath power in himself, even so hath the Son power—“

(Quoting John 5:26)

“to do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious—in a manner to lay down his body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again.”

I personally do not see any scripture Joseph Smith could be getting this.

So there you have it. Joseph contradicted himself, I (personally) don’t feel the Spirit on it. And true to his word, that was basically his last address. He died two months later.

Thus, there is no standard by which any Mormon should be painted of believing the King Follett discourse just on the virtue of being a Mormon.
I think I can see his point. There are not many biblical references that he could have used to support his theology, so he does his best with the limited resources that are available to him.
 
Last edited:

zerinus

Active member
Moroni 7:22 For behold, God knowing all things, being from everlasting to everlasting , behold, he sent angels to minister unto the children of men, to make manifest concerning the coming of Christ; and in Christ there should come every good thing.

2 Nephi 27:23
For behold, I am god; and I am a God of miracles; and I will show unto the world that I am the same yesterday, today, and forever; and I work not among the children of men save it be according to their faith.

2 Nephi 29:9
And I do this that I may prove unto many that I am the same yesterday, today, and forever; and that I speak forth my words according to mine own pleasure. And because that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever.
from all eternity to all eternity.

Mormon 9:9 For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever , and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing?

Mormon 9:19
And if there were miracles wrought then, why has God ceased to be a God of miracles and yet be an unchanging Being? And behold, I say unto you he changeth not; if so he would cease to be God; and he ceaseth not to be God, and is a God of miracles.”

Moroni 8:18 For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable

2 Nephi 19:9 And I do this that I may prove unto many that I am the same yesterday, today, and forever; and that I speak forth my words according to mine own pleasure. And because that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever.

Moroni 7:22
For behold, God knowing all things, being from everlasting to everlasting, behold, he sent angels to minister unto the children of men, to make manifest concerning the coming of Christ; and in Christ there should come every good thing.

By these things we know that there is a God in heaven, who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God, the framer of heaven and earth, and all things which are in them; D&C 20:17
See my previous post.
 

brotherofJared

Active member
let’s set why a Mormon would reject it.
Why don't let's see why a Mormon would accept it?

From your observations, off-the-cuff, we can see that many of the things he said do not align with our own scripture, so the question in my mind is, what did he mean which I believe is maintained in the context of the discourse, namely that God, our Father in Heaven, did the same thing His son did and therefore has a body of flesh and bone. In other words, He followed the Snow couplet exactly as did Christ. From spirit to mortal, from mortal to embodied exalted man through the resurrection.

I contend that his statement, "how God came to be God" flows into the next sentence.
We have imagined and supposed that God was God
Is more about WHAT we have imagined and supposed that God was "from all eternity". The discourse then goes on to describe that the Father did all that His Son did. Basically that the Father lived on a world very similar to ours and was born of a woman, lived a perfect life, died for the salvation of his people and that they all are resurrected with him, as we will be through Jesus Christ. The misunderstanding that our critics take away from this is that Joseph never states that God was ever not God. None of the discourse attempts to support that statement.

Admittedly, Joseph could have said somethings better to make it more clear, and for all we know he did (there was no recording or people skilled at dictation) and the 4 reproductions of that discourse are not exact records of what he said. The fact remains, that the entire discourse, in a nutshell, is that Jesus followed the same pattern of life as His Father did and that we can see what Our Father in Heaven did by examining the life of his Son.
 

brotherofJared

Active member
I personally do not see any scripture Joseph Smith could be getting this.
Hmm... You don't see John 5:26? Did you mean that you don't see how Joseph Smith can get that interpretation out of that verse? I do. But that's not the only one. Jesus himself said that he can do nothing but what he sees the Father doing. That statement and the remainder of that passage, confirms it for me. Clearly, the Father lived and walked a holy walk and according to the remainder of this passage, what Jesus was yet to do, clearly the Father also died and took his body again, in the resurrection, but still. Joseph Smith knew this from the beginning, from the very first vision where he saw them both together. He may not have understood it's implications at the time, but he clearly revealed what he had come to understand since this in the KFD.

He stated that he could not tell them apart in the First Vision until one of them introduced the other has his Son. First, it would be a stunning revelation that God the Father has a body, along with the fact that he is a completely separate entity from His son (though that's common sense, traditional Christianity has tainted that sense dulling the minds of their adherents). But the truly remarkable thing about that visit was that Joseph couldn't tell them apart. Our Savior, Jesus Christ, should have been immediately recognizable from the Father based solely on the tokens of his sacrifice in the palms of his hands and hin his feet, but Joseph couldn't tell them apart.
Joseph contradicted himself, I (personally) don’t feel the Spirit on it. And true to his word, that was basically his last address. He died two months later.
So, you're one who thinks the prophet fell from grace and that God cast him aside and replaced him with a better prophet. I disagree. Joseph Smith didn't make any mistakes in the KFD. There is one oddity that I have difficulty with, but it's not that the Father has a body of flesh and bone and that he lived life and died and is now a resurrected being. That part is 100 percent correct.
 

Aaron32

Active member
While it is true to say that the King Follett Sermon, or more accurately, Joseph Smith's doctrine of the origin of God as taught in the King Follett Sermon, has not been canonized; there is no doubt that Joseph Smith taught it, and I personally have no difficulty accepting that it is true.

I don't agree that there is necessarily a contradiction. According to LDS scripture, the divine attributes of infinity, eternity, and unchangeableness etc. are attributes that can be acquired. They don't mean what we, in our finite minds, think they mean:


Doctrine and Covenants 132:

20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.


Deification in LDS theology means acquiring all the divine attributes of infinity, eternity, unchangeableness, omniscience, omnipotence, etc. That is what it means to be deified, or become gods.

I think I can see his point. There are not many biblical references that he could have used to support his theology, so he does his best with the limited resources that are available to him.
The problem I have with it is that it conflicts with D&C 93:
4 The Father because he gave me of his fulness, and the Son because I was in the world and made flesh my tabernacle, and dwelt among the sons of men.
13 And he received not of the fulness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness;
14 And thus he was called the Son of God, because he received not of the fulness at the first.

The Father has the fullness, and is unchanging.
Moreover, is JS suggesting He was a Christ during his mortality? Personally, That’s just a bit hard for me to swallow.
But I could totally be misunderstanding it too.
 

Aaron32

Active member
Why don't let's see why a Mormon would accept it?

From your observations, off-the-cuff, we can see that many of the things he said do not align with our own scripture, so the question in my mind is, what did he mean which I believe is maintained in the context of the discourse, namely that God, our Father in Heaven, did the same thing His son did and therefore has a body of flesh and bone. In other words, He followed the Snow couplet exactly as did Christ. From spirit to mortal, from mortal to embodied exalted man through the resurrection.

I contend that his statement, "how God came to be God" flows into the next sentence.

Is more about WHAT we have imagined and supposed that God was "from all eternity". The discourse then goes on to describe that the Father did all that His Son did. Basically that the Father lived on a world very similar to ours and was born of a woman, lived a perfect life, died for the salvation of his people and that they all are resurrected with him, as we will be through Jesus Christ. The misunderstanding that our critics take away from this is that Joseph never states that God was ever not God. None of the discourse attempts to support that statement.

Admittedly, Joseph could have said somethings better to make it more clear, and for all we know he did (there was no recording or people skilled at dictation) and the 4 reproductions of that discourse are not exact records of what he said. The fact remains, that the entire discourse, in a nutshell, is that Jesus followed the same pattern of life as His Father did and that we can see what Our Father in Heaven did by examining the life of his Son.
Ok. So if the Father was a Christ in His mortality, then how does that apply to us. Why would he say that you can become God’s yourselves? Who would the Messiah of our spirit children look to for their example? It just doesn’t follow for me, but having said that, I never had a solid understanding of how Jesus was Jehovah in the OT until recently, so...I guess I’m pretty slow.
 

zerinus

Active member
The problem I have with it is that it conflicts with D&C 93:
4 The Father because he gave me of his fulness, and the Son because I was in the world and made flesh my tabernacle, and dwelt among the sons of men.
13 And he received not of the fulness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness;
14 And thus he was called the Son of God, because he received not of the fulness at the first.

The Father has the fullness, and is unchanging.
That references a different kind of theological concept altogether. Jesus in the Book of Mormon, and in the D&C, is often referred to as being both the Father and the Son at the same time, which has tripped up many non-LDS into thinking that the Book of Mormon teaches a Trinitarian theology, which it doesn't. That scripture you quoted gives the theological explanation for why that happens. Jesus in the preexistence had acquired all the fulness of the Father, meaning all the divine attributes of the Father, which means that when he entered into mortality and acquired a physical body, he became both the Father and the Son at the same time. That is a different theological concept altogether, and does not negate or contradict the principles discussed before.
Moreover, is JS suggesting He was a Christ during his mortality? Personally, That’s just a bit hard for me to swallow.
But I could totally be misunderstanding it too.
I was not aware that he did.
 

Aaron32

Active member
Hmm... You don't see John 5:26? Did you mean that you don't see how Joseph Smith can get that interpretation out of that verse? I do. But that's not the only one. Jesus himself said that he can do nothing but what he sees the Father doing. That statement and the remainder of that passage, confirms it for me. Clearly, the Father lived and walked a holy walk and according to the remainder of this passage, what Jesus was yet to do, clearly the Father also died and took his body again, in the resurrection, but still. Joseph Smith knew this from the beginning, from the very first vision where he saw them both together. He may not have understood it's implications at the time, but he clearly revealed what he had come to understand since this in the KFD.

He stated that he could not tell them apart in the First Vision until one of them introduced the other has his Son. First, it would be a stunning revelation that God the Father has a body, along with the fact that he is a completely separate entity from His son (though that's common sense, traditional Christianity has tainted that sense dulling the minds of their adherents). But the truly remarkable thing about that visit was that Joseph couldn't tell them apart. Our Savior, Jesus Christ, should have been immediately recognizable from the Father based solely on the tokens of his sacrifice in the palms of his hands and hin his feet, but Joseph couldn't tell them apart.

So, you're one who thinks the prophet fell from grace and that God cast him aside and replaced him with a better prophet. I disagree. Joseph Smith didn't make any mistakes in the KFD. There is one oddity that I have difficulty with, but it's not that the Father has a body of flesh and bone and that he lived life and died and is now a resurrected being. That part is 100 percent correct.
Ok. So when I posted this I was overlooking John 5:19. It sounded familiar but I wasn’t seeing it anywhere.
Regardless, maybe it my limited definition of God being “unchanging” but it just seems wrong to me.

So yeah, I have a hard time with the KFD. I think the fruits of the doctrine have done more harm than good. I also struggle with polygamy - I don’t like how Oliver Cowdery was treated, etc. Call that a lack of faith on my part...whatever. There’s just a shroud of darkness of how it all came about. And in the end, the Manifesto basically says “if we don’t stop it, we lose everything” - which lesson tells me, it’s the Lord’s Church, people make mistakes, the Church shakes it off and rolls on, and fulfills the promise that (over time) the Lord will not permit the Church to be led astray. I could be completely wrong this, but I don’t see how it affects my salvation. I’m still a faithful member, etc.
Also, to be clear, just because I believe JS made a mistake, doesn’t mean I don’t respect his life’s work. Even Moses, after all He did, in a moment of weakness, made an error that kept him from entering the promised land. The OT is full of those type of stories. I think what it means to always be humble. And that people in those types of callings have spiritual trials that I can’t possibly imagine.
So, anyway, sorry for the rant, but I just want to be transparent where my minds at. I don’t think I’m alone in my reasoning.
 

Aaron32

Active member
That references a different kind of theological concept altogether. Jesus in the Book of Mormon, and in the D&C, is often referred to as being both the Father and the Son at the same time, which has tripped up many non-LDS into thinking that the Book of Mormon teaches a Trinitarian theology, which it doesn't. That scripture you quoted gives the theological explanation for why that happens. Jesus in the preexistence had acquired all the fulness of the Father, meaning all the divine attributes of the Father, which means that when he entered into mortality and acquired a physical body, he became both the Father and the Son at the same time. That is a different theological concept altogether, and does not negate or contradict the principles discussed before.

I was not aware that he did.
How could Jesus see the Father lay down his Life and take it up again, unless His Father did it too?
 

zerinus

Active member
Ok. So when I posted this I was overlooking John 5:19. It sounded familiar but I wasn’t seeing it anywhere.
Regardless, maybe it my limited definition of God being “unchanging” but it just seems wrong to me.

So yeah, I have a hard time with the KFD. I think the fruits of the doctrine have done more harm than good. I also struggle with polygamy - I don’t like how Oliver Cowdery was treated, etc. Call that a lack of faith on my part...whatever. There’s just a shroud of darkness of how it all came about. And in the end, the Manifesto basically says “if we don’t stop it, we lose everything” - which lesson tells me, it’s the Lord’s Church, people make mistakes, the Church shakes it off and rolls on, and fulfills the promise that (over time) the Lord will not permit the Church to be led astray. I could be completely wrong this, but I don’t see how it affects my salvation. I’m still a faithful member, etc.
Also, to be clear, just because I believe JS made a mistake, doesn’t mean I don’t respect his life’s work. Even Moses, after all He did, in a moment of weakness, made an error that kept him from entering the promised land. The OT is full of those type of stories. I think what it means to always be humble. And that people in those types of callings have spiritual trials that I can’t possibly imagine.
So, anyway, sorry for the rant, but I just want to be transparent where my minds at. I don’t think I’m alone in my reasoning.
I prefer to judge him by the great things that he did accomplish, rather than by what his critics and detractors have said about him: the Book of Mormon, the revelations of the Doctrine and Covenants, the First Vision, the restoration of the priesthood, the restoration of all the keys of the kingdom, the establishment of the true Church and Kingdom of God on earth, with all the keys and powers thereof, including prophets, Apostles, gifts, callings, etc., the numerous angelic ministrations he received, and finally sealing his testimony with his blood, which enshrines his name forever among the greate prophets and Apostles of all time. That is what I prefer to remember him by.
 

zerinus

Active member
How could Jesus see the Father lay down his Life and take it up again, unless His Father did it too?
I am not following you. Jesus says that he does nothing but what he sees the Father do:

John 5:

19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.


Joseph Smith bases his conclusion on that, and I don't see a problem with that.
 

brotherofJared

Active member
Regardless, maybe it my limited definition of God being “unchanging” but it just seems wrong to me.
God is unchanging. He is the same being He ever was or ever will be, but his body does not change who he is. Jesus Christ was Jehovah in the OT. He took a body and the form of man in the New Testament, but he was the same being in the New Testament as he was in the Old. And, in his resurrection, he is still the same being. The being is unchanging, but; obviously, that being took on different forms. The same is true of all of us. We are the same beings we were before we were born as we are now. Hopefully, we're learning along the way. Even Christ learned some things, but that doesn't change the person that we are. I can be a mean BoJ or a nice BoJ, but I am still the same BoJ. The identity of the being didn't change. With Jesus, even though he learned some things, He didn't change because he possessed all perfections. The same is true of His Father.

So yeah, I have a hard time with the KFD. I think the fruits of the doctrine have done more harm than good.
I believe that comes through the misinterpretations provided by our critics. They believe that if they can get someone to focus on a few words, they can misconstrue the entire message into one that isn't there. They have been pretty successful at it, but it doesn't make them right. Their expertise is in misdirecting attention.
I also struggle with polygamy - I don’t like how Oliver Cowdery was treated, etc.
A lot of people do, but I don't' see polygamy mentioned anywhere in the KFD, so I'm a little confused about how this got added. I assume you have no problem with eternal marriage? I believe that you can't have eternal marriage and not have polygamy. One requires the other. If you are sealed to one woman and she dies and you marry again, what happens? Do you get sealed to her too? I should hope so. If not, you may create a problem where she will not have a husband to be sealed to. The solution would be to never get married again which creates its own problems or you marry only women who area already sealed to another husband which severely limits you.

I don't have a problem with polygamy. I see its purpose and I see it as an equitable way of handling the vast difference between men and women. I believe there will be far more women in heaven than men. I see no reason to deprive them of godhood simply because there wasn't an exact even number of men to women who wanted to be married.
“if we don’t stop it, we lose everything”
Hopefully, you know that he meant every material possession the church had at the time, no temples, no chapels, no lands, everything. I don't like the way it ended, but that wasn't the church's fault. And further, I don't think it was sustainable. It would have eventually collapsed anyway. We can see the issues it has created among the FLDS. It was abused in David's day as well. Generally speaking, the women have to run it or it won't work.
it’s the Lord’s Church, people make mistakes
I believe those mistakes are God directed and permitted for his own reasons. For example, the priesthood should have never been withheld from black members of the church. It was a mistake to withhold the priesthood from them, but the alternative at the time, allowing black members to hold the priesthood, would have been devastating. At the best, it would have created segregated congregations, at the worst, it would have created a hostile environment for black leadership in a prejudiced world. No black priesthood holder would have been able to execute judgment in discipline cases and they would have run into problems, I believe, when administering to the sick, heaven forbid that any of the sick might have died under such a blessing. We just weren't ready for that at the time. The church had too many other problems they couldn't take on an abolitionist agenda at the same time. The wheat had to be planted with the tares.

But that's not the problem with polygamy. It's the reason it ended, but not the reason it started.
Even Moses, after all He did, in a moment of weakness, made an error that kept him from entering the promised land.
I believe that was intentional also. I believe God had it all planned out to happen exactly as it did, no mistakes made. You may not know this, but the death of Moses essentially freed Israel to move into the promised land. This "release of the prisoners" so to speak, was later celebrated on the death of every high priest thereafter. Whenever a high priest died, all those who were exiled to sanctuary cities for crimes of passion, for example, if they killed someone because they were angry, rather than be killed, eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, they were exiled to a sanctuary city, but when the High priest died, they were all immediately freed to return home and start new.

God has his reasons and they are not all known to man. Lean not unto thine own wisdom...

I do not believe Joseph Smith was perfect or that he didn't make mistakes. But Joseph saw heaven and spoke with God face to face as one man speaks to another. When he talks about God, I believe he would give us the most accurate information of anyone else that I know. We may not understand it, but what we can get from it would be more precious than gold and as valuable as life itself.
 

brotherofJared

Active member
And thus he was called the Son of God, because he received not of the fulness at the first.
That fullness didn't come until after Christ's resurrection. If he had that same fullness in the beginning, he could not be the Son because he would have already been resurrected, like the Father. In order to obtain the fullness, Christ had to complete is work for the salvation of men first.
Moreover, is JS suggesting He was a Christ during his mortality?
I don't know where you're getting that. Is it from the KFD?
 

brotherofJared

Active member
So if the Father was a Christ in His mortality, then how does that apply to us.
It doesn't. We can never do what they did. We will never do what they did. They, meaning the Father and the Son.
Why would he say that you can become God’s yourselves?
Joseph doesn't say "become" He said we have to learn how to be Gods yourselves. This subtle difference is not something I would discuss in a public forum, but it is significant. But, the learning implies that over time we have to learn the attributes that Christ had during his mortal ministry, namely humility, meekness, kindness, love unfeigned. A lot of people think God is all about saying a word and it being so and that's what makes him God. It's not. If one had such power, it would behoove the giver of such power to be certain that those he gives such power too do not have an unbridled tongue, are completely in control of their temper and are able to extend the same kind of love towards all the same as Jesus did.

I remember an incident where a woman, young just married, got upset with her husband and returned to her home town and moved in with an old flame and started a new home there. Her actual husband when to their home town and retrieved her brought her back and went through a Bishop's court. The woman was disfellowshipped but that cause such a ruckus in that ward where many of the other women felt that nothing short of ex-communication forever was sufficient punishment. When I think of Jesus who readily forgave the adulterous woman and didn't blink an eye when speaking to the woman at the well who was not living with a man who was her husband and that he was the fifth man who she had been with who wasn't her husband, I'd say we have a lot to learn.
Who would the Messiah of our spirit children look to for their example?
Good question. I believe this being would use Christ as his example. Of course, that would only make sense. I don't believe we are putting our own spirit children (because we don't make spirit children through procreation) on a earth. We will be working for the salvation of many souls together as part of a community. Our children would be the Eve's and the Adam's that will ultimately inhabit a world, but Savior of these worlds, while they may be our spiritual offspring will look to the head of our community, a kingdom of priests, to find the example he will bind his own actions too.
It just doesn’t follow for me, but having said that, I never had a solid understanding of how Jesus was Jehovah in the OT until recently, so...I guess I’m pretty slow.
No. You're asking the tough questions. I don't know if my answers are any closer to the truth than anything else you might have heard. I am constantly trying to connect the dots and you're asking many of the same questions I have asked. I am certain that there are answers to all of them and they come when the Lord has prepared us to receive them.
 

The Prophet

Member
That references a different kind of theological concept altogether. Jesus in the Book of Mormon, and in the D&C, is often referred to as being both the Father and the Son at the same time, which has tripped up many non-LDS into thinking that the Book of Mormon teaches a Trinitarian theology, which it doesn't. That scripture you quoted gives the theological explanation for why that happens. Jesus in the preexistence had acquired all the fulness of the Father, meaning all the divine attributes of the Father, which means that when he entered into mortality and acquired a physical body, he became both the Father and the Son at the same time. That is a different theological concept altogether, and does not negate or contradict the principles discussed before.

I was not aware that he did.
where in the Trinitarian theology does it teach Jesus is the Father and Son ? it is just the opposite since the Trinity teaches their separate and distinct persons .
 

The Prophet

Member

Notice how both teach The Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father, just the opposite as to watch you said :)
 

zerinus

Active member
where in the Trinitarian theology does it teach Jesus is the Father and Son ? it is just the opposite since the Trinity teaches their separate and distinct persons .
I am not the one who has been saying that, you are. So you have finally figured that the Book of Mormon does not teach Trinitarian theology after all! Congratulations! It took you a long time, but better late than never I guess. So we will never hear nonsense from you again. That is cause for celebration. I think I will give a party tonight, and report to everyone the great news.
Notice how both teach The Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father, just the opposite as to watch you said :)
I am not in the slightest bit interested in what your Trinitarian theology teaches. The only thing I interested in is dispelling the false claim you have been making here for many years that the Book of Mormon teaches the Trinitarian theology, which it most certainly does not.
 

The Prophet

Member
I am not the one who has been saying that, you are. So you have finally figured that the Book of Mormon does not teach Trinitarian theology after all! Congratulations! It took you a long time, but better late than never I guess. So we will never hear nonsense from you again. That is cause for celebration. I think I will give a party tonight, and report to everyone the great news.

I am not in the slightest bit interested in what your Trinitarian theology teaches. The only thing I interested in is dispelling the false claim you have been making here for many years that the Book of Mormon teaches the Trinitarian theology, which it most certainly does not.
The Book of Mormon definitely teaches the Trinity

2 Nephi 31:

21 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.

Alma 11:

44 Now, this restoration shall come to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, both the wicked and the righteous; and even there shall not so much as a hair of their heads be lost; but everything shall be restored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body, and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God, to be judged according to their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil.


Mormon 7:

7 And he hath brought to pass the redemption of the world, whereby he that is found guiltless before him at the judgment day hath it given unto him to dwell in the presence of God in his kingdom, to sing ceaseless praises with the choirs above, unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God, in a state of happiness which hath no end.


The Testimony of Three Witnesses

And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.

Oliver Cowdery

David Whitmer

Martin Harris


1 Nephi 13: 41 And they must come according to the words which shall be established by the mouth of the Lamb; and the words of the Lamb shall be made known in the records of thy seed, as well as in the records of the twelve apostles of the Lamb; wherefore they both shall be established in one; for there is one God and one Shepherd over all the earth.


Doctrine and Covenants 20 :

28 Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen.


1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one. Joseph Smith translation


Moses 1:6

6 And I have a work for thee, Moses, my son; and thou art in the similitude of mine Only Begotten; and mine Only Begotten is and shall be the Savior, for he is full of grace and truth; but there is no God beside me, and all things are present with me, for I know them all.
 
Top